This Blog was Invented in Xi'an 5,000 Years Ago

Ranters Wanted

Would YOU be an alcoholic if only you could make it to the meetings? Do YOU possess the ability to have a really good rant whilst obeying the basic rules of grammar? If the answer to these questions is YES, then feel free to share your deepest, innermost thoughts with your friends here at MyLaowai.com

Some Nice Buttons

Happy America Day, Or Something

How have you been? Your mother and I often worry about you, in fact we have done ever since you threw your toys out of the pram and left back in 1776 over what was, let’s face it, a fairly minor incident. Something to do with not liking your tea, as I recall. Still, you’ve made do with a rather dreary imitation of coffee since then and, as you seem to enjoy it, I guess that’s what counts.

I heard you were to play in a soccer tournament, congratulations. I’m not sure exactly when it is, but if you play sport the same way as you play war – wait until half time, see which team is winning, and then join in on their side – then we all have no doubts you’ll do wonderfully!

Auntie Popadopalopalopalopalous has been a bit unwell recently, it seems she followed the advice of a doctor who turned out to be a bit of a snake-oil salesman, but fortunately she’s amongst people who care about others and we’re sure she’ll pull through eventually.

Anyway, we hope you are well and that adolescence isn’t treating you too unkindly. Any time you need some advice from your older brothers and sisters, or from your parents, please do feel free to write. And remember to play nicely with the Q’uran children – their parents are your landlords, after all. Oh, and before I forget, your mother has asked me to remind you to wash your hands after playing with little Wang Xiangsheng – you know what a dirty boy he is!

Right then, must dash. Here’s your present – unwrap it when you get home. Happy birthday, America. Grow up soon.

Chinese Netizensaid

America’s “newness” is an old tradition; people have been talking about it for hundreds of years.
On the other hand, whatever residue is left of England’s putative antiquity will go extinct in the next few years as the English are determined to commit national suicide by abolishing Christianity and embracing Shariah law.

justrecentlysaid

It’s stupid to suggest that every muslim citizen would advocate shariah law, or any restrictions on the freedom of speech for that matter, for fear that his or her “religious feelings” might otherwise be hurt. Most issues you might want to use as an example for the dangers of islamism can be attributed to a generally dumbed-down public with mortified people who spot victimizers in every place.
In my (comparatively muslim) neighborhood I have seen less than a handful of muslim parents who would brainwash their children – and I have seen two christian families who did exactly the same thing.
Repeating a cliche consistently doesn’t add any more truth to it, Ned.
So long as the state is secular and the judiciary remains independent, I see no intractable problems looming in this field. And if we don’t manage to maintain that independence, such failure will most probably create greater dangers than islamismist attempts on our liberties.

justrecentlysaid

Do you advocate them being barred from the legal profession, the civil service, local government and Parliament?
I believe you haven’t read my comment closely, scoobydo. Sure I expect that their numbers in government, including the judiciary, will increase. Where is the problem with that? Are you suggesting that muslims are usually unprofessional?

justrecentlysaid

My reply to your comment there, scoobydo –
I’m not suggesting that all civil rights can be protected under all circumstances, but in most cases when they were or are violated (including violations in the current “war on terrorism”), they were violated for convenience and ideological reasons, rather than for real necessity.

I do actually believe that Islam is an ideology, rather than a religion, because it strongly intervenes in daily lives of muslims and non-muslims alike – no matter how many muslims actually support radicals.

Openness, even under such circumstances, is the only viable answer for an open society if it wants to outlast its enemies. Repression would damage an open society more than its enemies. For the same reason, I wouldn’t advocate restrictions on working opportunities for Chinese nationals in western companies – I only recommend such companies be aware of the CCP’s policies, including their potential to blackmail even reluctant spies, when the job in question is about R&D or otherwise sensitive.

Of course, the success of openness depends on individuals. Mortified people are the most likely enemies of openness. But then, mortifications are most likely to be cultivated by people who feel disenfranchised, and who are unable to reflect upon their own role in a both self-confident and self-critical way.

So, I believe that education is the best way to prevent extremists from dominating more moderate muslims. It’s mostly weak people who will allow extremists to dominate them.

0112337said

Here’s a random thought to live up your blog Mylaowai. It’s about Santa Claus and China. I know it’s not Christmas, but what the heck…

I was reading up on buddhism last night from insomnia and discovered something interesting. Did you know that the popular 彌勒菩薩 or Mi-le Buddha in China was a Sinicized version of Maitreya from India?

The original Maitreya was supposed to be a young, beautiful, and intelligent Indian youth. The one in China, on the other hand, is a fat, pot-bellied, baldy that sometimes holds a gold ingot. This had me thinking, how did a young, beautiful, youth…pure and free from worldly filth, like one fresh out of college, came to look like a stereotyped business executive, who is 30-40 years older?

Apparently, the Chinese version was based on a monk called 布袋 from the Tang dynasty. Back then, fat was beautiful, and this monk followed the trend. He thought he was the reincarnation of the Mi-le Buddha and people believed him so he became the Sinicized version of the foreign Maitreya.

But what about now? With the unstoppable and inevitable integration of East and West, many foreign elements are just waiting to be sinicized. Santa Claus is one of them.

In 50 years, the Chinese version of Santa Claus, Father Christmas, or jolly old St. Nicholas will most assuredly drop his red, peasant garbs and adopt a red, tailored suit, made of the finest silk, designed by some well known luxury brand in the Chinese colony of Milan, in the former backward agrarian country known as Italy. It will be sanctioned by the Party. That dirty old red thing he is wearing now is so 20th century and un-Chinese. His sack will be made out of snake-skin, designed by Gucci, genuine and not pirated this time, again under the auspices of the Glorious Party, and it will contain nice, pink, swabs of Renminbi with smiling Maos on each. He will drop those down the chimney of the good little Chinese children. For the bad children, he will drop down marxist theory textbooks and exams (with the words, you can’t pass, don’t try written on them).

He will probably drive a Chinese brand luxury car, instead of the reindeers, and it will fly (If it doesn’t, the Party will make it fly. The glorious party can accomplish anything and it will accomplish it even if it has to fake it on TV).

I will leave things here and let you imagine the rest….

And for the holiday called Christmas…hmm…well..smart Chinese people of 50 years later won’t bother with unfathomable, disgusting western traditions about nailing hippies on crosses and it coming back to life. That’s too scary and confusing. What? This hippie died for my sins? Too confusing…

No, churches and Christmas will be a place and time for fun. There will be trivia and friendly competitions held in the Church on Christmas with generous, materialistic, rewards at the end. Entrance fees will NOT be expensive like at the other places. Everyone’s a Winner on Christmas! There will be singing, dancing, and eating! KTVs will be everywhere and sharkfin and swallow nest soup, abalone, lobsters, Alaska king crab legs, yellow tail sashimi will all be served buffet style. Remy Martins and Yellow Tea will also flow like water. The children will get as much Mao notes as they want, the fathers will get to pick his whore, as many as he wants (and the whores can come in all different colors, dressed up in nun’s outfits) and the mother can use the place to catch up with the other mothers about the latest gossip, or use the time to shop…GENUINE brand products, as much as she wants.

Interestingly, I regularly see old statues of Mao Ze’cunt dressed up as Santa come December.

Go figure. Maybe the Chinese are just starved for culture. Which they are.

And churches in China are no place to have fun. Unless by ‘fun’ you mean ‘donate your organs whilst still alive when the government thugs and goons burst in and arrest your ass for illegal something-or-other’, which you probably don’t.

Scoobydosaid

I believe that the rights’ of minorities (and majorities) need to be protected. I am however wary of any group of people with a strong belief (religious or otherwise) about how other people should be allowed to behave when that behaviour doesn’t negatively impact other people’s rights.

In other words, I am very wary of Muslims, Christians or any other religion, , telling gays that they are not allowed to be gay or that womens’ rights should be regressed in the name of religion.

It’s stupid to suggest that every muslim citizen would advocate shariah law, or any restrictions on the freedom of speech for that matter, for fear that his or her “religious feelings” might otherwise be hurt.

Indeed. However one pertinent question is, can the more extreme Islamic minority successfully impose their morals on the more moderate majority?

Evidence around the world suggests that Islamic extremists often can.

The fact that Islamic extremists exist in the UK is, unfortunately, not in question.

How can we prevent extremists dominating the more moderate Muslims?

Most issues you might want to use as an example for the dangers of islamism can be attributed to a generally dumbed-down public with mortified people who spot victimizers in every place.

I think people generally have the perception of creeping Islamification.

With rising number of Muslims in the UK, the question isn’t whether the UK is becoming more of an Islamic society (due to demographic factors it quite clearly is as a matter of fact) but rather it is a question of to what extent and at what pace is the UK becoming more Islamic.

There is also the question of to what extent will increasing Islamification impact secular rights in the future.

I would welcome your comments on the following article.

Islamic radicals ‘infiltrate’ the Labour Party

A Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain.

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years…

…IFE activists boasted to the undercover reporters that they had already “consolidated … a lot of influence and power” over Tower Hamlets, a London borough council with a £1 billion budget.

We have established that the group and its allies were awarded more than £10 million of taxpayers’ money, much of it from government funds designed to “prevent violent extremism…

…Moderate Muslims in London told how the IFE and its allies were enforcing their hardline views on the rest of the local community, curbing behaviour they deemed “un-Islamic”. The owner of a dating agency received a threatening email from an IFE activist, warning her to close it.

I think most people, moderate Muslims included, would agree that such a situation is unacceptable.

“Less than four months after he sparked off a controversy for reportedly insulting Prophet Muhammed in a question paper, a college lecturer, T J Joseph, was attacked by some unidentified men who chopped off his right hand, at Muvattupuzha in central Kerala today.

Joseph, 52, Malayalam lecturer at Catholic-run Newman College, Thodupuzha, was returning home after attending Sunday prayers at the local church when he was attacked. He was accompanied by his mother and sister.

Police have taken into custody two suspected activists of the right-wing Popular Front of India. Joseph has been admitted to the Specialist Hospital in Kochi.

I challenge JR or any other readers to find any reports of similar incidents of Catholics cutting off any university lecturers’ hands for religious reasons anywhere in the world in the past ten years, using ten years as an outside margin of “current events”.

The Vatican does not issue Fatwahs. And secular Jewish social-engineers who are hostile to Christianity while in the next breath being sympathetic to Islam, are alienating their only real allies in this world. The majority of Christians respect the human rights of Jews and acknowledge Jews as spiritual kin; the majority of Muslims simply hate Jews and would not mind seeing them exteriminated.

2. ““Decoy Jew” is a new phrase in the Netherlands. Jews are no longer safe in major Dutch cities such as Amsterdam. Since 1999, Jewish organizations in the Netherlands have been complaining that Jews who walk the Dutch streets wearing skullcaps risk verbal and physical attacks by young Muslims. Being insulted, spat at or attacked are some of the risks associated with being recognizable as a Jew in contemporary Western Europe.

Last week, a television broadcast showed how three Jews with skullcaps, two adolescents and an adult, were harassed within thirty minutes of being out in the streets of Amsterdam. Young Muslims spat at them, mocked them, shouted insults and made Nazi salutes. “Dirty Jew, go back to your own country,” a group of Moroccan youths shouted at a young indigenous Dutch Jew. “It is rather ironic,” the young man commented, adding that if one goes out in a burka one encounters less hostility than if one wears a skullcap.” http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4470

In sum, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Muslims are NOT friends of Jews or of secularists.

justrecentlysaid

You can’t challenge someone’s position before reading and paying some attention to what he says or writes, Ned. I’m not going to repeat my view of Islam time and again – it’s in this comment:

But responsibilities are individual. Every person has the right to be judged by his or her character and merits, not on his or her religious color. Obviously, this includes Hindus, Catholics, and re-born Christians, too.

Scoobydosaid

But responsibilities are individual. Every person has the right to be judged by his or her character and merits, not on his or her religious color.

Common sense however would suggest that by virtue of belonging to a group, then members of that group bear some collective responsibility for the actions of other members of that group carried out in the name of that group.

Can you provide links providing examples of moderate Muslims (in the UK or around the world) condemning Islamic violence?

Can I also look forward to your comments on the newspaper article I linked above in which a Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain?

If for arguments sake I concede that even though people choose to belong to a group, they should only be judged as individuals and not as a member of that group, then what do UK Muslims, as individuals, believe?

While the majority of UK Muslims believe that killing in the name of Islam isn’t justified, their numbers in no way removes the presence of 360,000 British Muslims living in the UK who believe that that violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam can sometimes be justified, the 528,000 British Muslims who believe that the July bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror or the 312,000 UK Muslims who felt attacks on the US by al Qaida or other groups were justified.

While the exact numbers are open to statistical debate (although all surveys were statically signifcant), what isn’t open to debate is the fact that there are a lot of British Muslims who hold opinions, as individuals, that support violence carried out in the name of Islam.

justrecentlysaid

I have heard a lot of muslims say that killing civilians is “unislamic” – and if you google “killing civilians” and “unislamic”, you will get about 14,900 results – even though news about hoxas or imams planning the caliphatization of a West European city is much more interesting news.

My grandmother, too, believes that violence against civilian targets can be justified – she’s only thinking of different targets. She’s Christian.

While the majority of UK Muslims believe that killing in the name of Islam isn’t justified, their numbers in no way removes the presence of 360,000 British Muslims living in the UK who believe that that violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam can sometimes be justified, the 528,000 British Muslims who believe that the July bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror or the 312,000 UK Muslims who felt attacks on the US by al Qaida or other groups were justified.

In another survey, attacks on the US by al Qaida or other groups were viewed as justified by 13% of the British Muslims questioned.

Consequently, 312,000 UK Muslims felt attacks on the US by al Qaida or other groups were justified.

Let me quote another line from there: More than one in 10 British Muslims back al Qaida-style terror strikes on the United States, a poll has revealed. Just for the sake of proportions. And if only one per cent of muslims supports the “war on terror”, it would still be enough to show Islam doesn’t switch peoples’ brains off.

When you are reading my comments above, you can see that I can perceive the potential threats. But the issue we were discussing before was if a muslim, as a judge, would distort justice because he would be shariah-minded.

What do the numbers suggest? I have read your interpretation. Here is mine. First of all, muslims have criticized me many times because I advocate good German-Israeli relations. And when they tell me that I should criticize this or that behavior by Israel – its troops, government, etc., I confront them with the fact that many of them wouldn’t criticize their hoxas, no matter what they preach.

Not on demand.

And that’s the point. What you and others ask muslims (and maybe not only muslims) for are tailor-made confessions. Tailor-made by you, and to be confessed by those whose beliefs you fear or dislike. That has never worked. This approach wouldn’t work on you or me either.

This is also my reaction to your demand that I should provide links providing examples of moderate Muslims (in the UK or around the world) condemning Islamic violence. So long as people I’m talking with abide by the law, we can talk and argue. Neither of us is an interrogator.

As for the infiltration of the East London Labour Party, Mr Fitzpatrick did the right thing: he made his concerns public. And the lady Ned referred to earlier did step one of the right two steps for sure: she made the transportation issue public. Another step should be a complaint to the bus operators, and, if that doesn’t work, a lawsuit.

Did I suggest that freedom would come as a freebie? Of course it takes courage to defend an open society.

Scoobydosaid

if you google “killing civilians” and “unislamic”, you will get about 14,900 results

If you google “coffee” and “unislamic” you get 32,600 hits.

And that’s the point. What you and others ask muslims (and maybe not only muslims) for are tailor-made confessions. Tailor-made by you, and to be confessed by those whose beliefs you fear or dislike.

You are being a little disingenuous by trying to misrepresent the nature of my request.

I asked for examples of moderate Muslims (in the UK or around the world) condemning Islamic violence.

I readily admit to disliking people who believe in violence in the name of religion.

My grandmother, too, believes that violence against civilian targets can be justified – she’s only thinking of different targets. She’s Christian.

When your grandmother supports violence directed towards the UK, then I will agree with you that the situations are the same.

There is a fundamental difference that you are missing.

Your grandmother is not the UK’s enemy.

528,000 British Muslims who thought blowing UK civilians up in the tube and on buses was ok by them are the UK’s enemy.

Can you really not see the difference?

…no matter how many muslims actually support radicals.
Openness, even under such circumstances, is the only viable answer for an open society if it wants to outlast its enemies. Repression would damage an open society more than its enemies

Do you actually have some historical precedents to support your position or do you just feel that your position is the correct one?

I fear that you confuse Western liberalism with strength.

Western liberalism was a product of the the 1960s – long after the West’s relative power had started to decline.

How does allowing Chinese spies to work in Western companies and allowing 528,000 Muslims who think that blowing UK civilians up on the tube is ok, into the UK make for a stronger country?

0112337said

wow…you are right JR, this IS premium internet content. I can’t believe a UK law school professor can say such things… I pity his muslim students.

Like I said, Europe IS fundamentally racist and xenophobic.

“How does allowing Chinese spies to work in Western companies…”

Spies?! Spies?!! Prof, you need to go take a whirl in the real world. Western companies use Chinese workers like slaves. Do you know how much Chinese workers contribute to western firms through sheer hard work, intelligence, and high productivity? You think they don’t know Chinese workers are trying to learn from them? Do you think they are stupid and naive like you?

In the U.S. tech industry, 80-90% of basic research is done by asians. By asians I mean Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. What you call stealing or spying is simply having the CHinese worker there sell his knowledge and findings to another firm in China. If he found the results himself, why shouldn’t he have the right to determine who to sell to? Do you think the firm or even the country values his contributions? Will he, the coolie in the research laboratory, get all the honors from his own findings or will the lazy, fat assed American lead scientist with connections get it? The guy is always treated like a foreigner, and that is why he has no loyalty toward his host country. He gets no honors for his contributions, but when he gets caught selling his own findings to another firm, the whole country pounces on him.

In the finance industry it is even more so. The quantitative side is choked full of Russians and Asians. They do all the hard work, get almost no respect from the bank (because they are not line managers), and are totally expandable like coolies.

Deutsche Bank has a tacit policy of not hiring asians, latinos, or blacks with German language skills. This is known by everyone. You know why? Because the Nazis there don’t want non-whites to understand what’s really going on.

Don’t ever let that petty subjective mindset takeover your thinking. Chinese today gained wealth through sheer hard work, and that money is earned through blood and sweat. It is also this money which we kindly gave to the lazy, racist, xenophobic, petty, unfriendly, and feral Americans so they don’t all go bankrupt and end up eating each other like in the Dark Ages. And how do they respond to our kindness? Arrogance, pettiness, xenophobia, and sheer stupidity. Some of these uncultured, small village, boorish meatballs are talking about defaulting on this loan now.

Why do you Europeans advocate for the muslims to integrate but when it comes to those of you living in China you change and advocate for the Chinese to change their country to suit you? I smell the stink of hypocrisy here… We have been too accommodating to you miserable barbarians out of pure friendship to the effect that you spoiled laowais are finding faults with their hosts. This is why there are “fenqings” venting on the internet.

Do you know WHY those muslims won’t integrate? Think about it. They came to your country expecting fair treatment, but what do they get?

In Sweden and other parts of Europe, they get the worst lands, with no help from the locals on how to integrate, and so they get low education, and bad jobs. Everywhere they go, they find xenophobia. Europeans even treat 2nd generation muslims, who were born in Europe, as foreigners. In Russia, Neo-nazi fucktarded skinheads murder them because they are “not white”. they are treated like dirt or animals and so they clutter around in their own communities, forming ghettos just like the Mexicans in the United States.

Do you think they will appreciate this so-called “European liberalism”? Don’t you think some of them, especially those unemployed, uneducated, confused young ones will turn to extremism?

Europeans are fundamentally lazy, unambitious, racist, and xenophobic, refusing to work and rather willing to eat off of the welfare system. Stop your stupidity and xenophobia, muslims are assets to your society, utilize them. Outbreaks of islamic extremism in Europe is a sign of European stupidity. Learn to utilize your assets, not turning them into enemies.

0112337said

And by the way Scooby, everything I wrote in the post above is true. I was being objective and fair. You know it as well as I if you have ever worked in finance and lived in the United States. I can’t say for sure about how it is in Europe because I have not lived there long enough, but from what I heard from a Russian friend who lived in Europe and the states, Russians are treated like white slaves in the tech. industry over there just like asians and indians are here and the muslims, especially the arabic ones, are treated like Mexicans in the U.S. Think about what I wrote instead of dismissing it as lunacy.

In regards to the muslims, the question is not whether if they will integrate but whether if Europe is really willing to honor its commitment to liberalism, and when I write liberalism, I mean real liberalism, where society is truly tolerant of individuals for the way they look, they way the live, and the religion they believe. Wearing the hijab is a particular choice of living, muslim women (by and large from my exposure to them) wishes to wear them, not as a result of “brainwashing” but as a sign of respect toward their own culture. But how did the supposedly liberal Europe react to this natural desire of self expression? What did France, one of the (supposedly) most democratic, liberal European country do? It banned wearing the hijab outright. It became illegal for women to cover their head in France. Do you call this liberalism? As a law professor, do you condone this? If this happened in America, there would be outrage and riots immediately. It is because of a strong legal system that protect individual rights that America could maintain its, truly, multicultural society.

Every homogenous group of people wishes immigrants to assimilate. However, modern Europeans, from what I can tell, made a conscientious choice to adopt cultural liberalism. If it wishes to experiment with a multicultural society, then it must honor it. It must honor its commitment with objective reason or otherwise it is hypocrisy. Objective reason means unbiased laws and an unbiased bureaucracy. This means that if the muslims wish to practice their religion and way of life, they should have every right too. And this should even be encouraged and cherished. However, they should not be allowed to FORCEFULLY impose their religion or way of life onto others, and if they do, laws must be created to punish them harshly.

Now, I know what you will say, like many Europeans who might have experienced pushy muslims, you wished to stop them. But have you thought about WHY they behave the way they do? You are a law professor and British, so I assume you have a good understanding of human nature. Since you do, you will know that human nature and objective reason is the same in all people regardless of race, nationality, or culture. Manipulation of these two factors is exactly what allowed the U.S. government to be able to assimilate countless scores of immigrants regardless of what religion, nationality, or race they came from.

Why do those muslims wish to rebel and forcefully change European society? Hm? I don’t know for sure and I am certainly not an authority on this, since I have not lived in Europe for long, but from what I heard, from clients, friends, and colleagues, Europeans have largely refused to take in muslims. They are always viewed as foreigners and European nations do not offer them adequate help on how to assimilate.

Take Sweden for example. My white American friend, who have lived in Sweden for four years, tell me that in that country muslims get the worst lands. The peaceful, benevolent Swedes allows muslim refugees from Somalia, Iraq, and other African/Middle Eastern countries to come in but stops short there. They give them the worst lands and then leave them alone, thinking that they will simply, miraculously, assimilate without their help. After all, Sweden has one of the worlds’ highest standard of living right?

But why do Europeans think that foreigners will adopt their culture just because of a shallow, superficial, showing of materialistic comfort? Isn’t this hypocrisy and arrogant stupidity? To devote muslims, adopting European ways means going straight to hell. No joke here. For one, their girls will all end up there if they truly become European. This is not comforting, and I bet they will naturally not adopt such behavior without help.

Understand that they have no idea what your society is. I bet the majority of them did not go to Europe hoping to blow it up. These sentiments are not part of Islam. However, like I said, European arrogance and perhaps racism, a lack of knowledge of European culture, hopelessness, unemployment, ghettoization, and subsequent jealousy, despair, family estrangement, and cultural estrangement will drive them to extremism. This is what I have concluded after talking with many muslims here in the U.S. who had relatives in Europe.

They are people, like you and I, not natural enemies. People become enemies from inadequate and improper government policies toward them. If European society reached out to help incoming muslim immigrants better adjust to the land, and taught them HOW to assimilate, made them feel welcomed, I doubt you will have any muslim extremists.

This is like how it is in the U.S. The United States, like China, and Europe has different cultures according to the different zones. People in the Northeast are cold and snobbish, those in the midwest, wild and peasant-like, those on the west coast are crazy, and people in the south are well…very, very friendly. Now, immigrants, from my observation, tend to assimilate very well in the midwest. This I believe is due to two reasons. Midwestern Americans are open and fair to all foreigners, they treat others as people. Second, they actively reach out to help foreigners assimilate. When those foreigners assimilate, they are are rewarded with praises, smiles…etc. Tacit, small social things in other words. While those who stubbornly hold on to their own beliefs are shunned, ignored at first, and ultimately scorned. Because of this social structure, most foreigners have become American unconsciously.

This is something to think about.

And to answer you prof. Yes, I was very disappointed that North Korea didn’t go further and that Holland and Spain played in the finals. That was the worst, most uninspired, boring football game I have ever watched. The players didn’t play till extra time after the 90 minutes. And the dutch ran like retards, especially that neanderthal Robben who missed two perfect, largely defenseless shots.

I can’t believe the retard actually tried to chase down the referee to tell him that the Spanish player attempted to foul him in the penalty box. I have never seen any football player that’s dumber. If you think they fouled you, then fall. And if you missed the opportunity, then don’t bring it up. That guy was a joke.

The final should have been played by Germany and Brazil. That would have been a very good game to watch. The German team was a sight to behold. I was telling my buddy how the game between Germany and Argentina was really a blitzkrieg on Germany’s part. That was beautiful, brilliant, football there.

0112337said

Now, regarding China/asia and Europe, I want to be perfectly objective and fair. Yes, I have veered off in some of my previous posts due to stress at work (the bank drives us (asian/white/latino workers) like slave masters), and I have vented anger due to perceived racism and hypocrisy here. Let me tell you how things really are.

To be fair, I think most Europeans want to be friends with Chinese people. All the Europeans (note: not westerners here) I met in real life showed me respect and genuine friendship. The friendliest and most open ones are the French and Russians, I believe French men are somewhat like Chinese men in the sense that they are sensitive individuals. Germans on the other hand have given me the perception that they are meticulous…to to the point of being mechanical, childishly arrogant, haughty, and distanced. Some have shown hostility from (I hypothesize) the fact that they believe China is not becoming democratic like Europe and now holds the potential to make Europe more totalitarian in the future. Like I said before, I used to think that they were racist, but then I realized it was really a sense of superiority and proudness which I think they display to everyone, including other Europeans.

I don’t know why Europeans were so friendly. Perhaps from a lack of exposure? This sentiment is clearly displayed in the media…like in the French movie, entre le murs. I get the impression that many Europeans don’t understand Chinese people and Chinese society just like Chinese people don’t understand the West. Of course, when you don’t understand somebody or something, you either show caution/reserve, or friendliness. Many Americans show caution/reserve because they grew up in a highly competitive and inherently violent, insecure capitalist society. Some of them are highly wary of foreigners. This, when manifested in the extreme form, and mixed with ignorance, can be interpreted as racism. But Europeans tend to be quite friendly. The most delightful thing to watch is first exposure between a Chinese mid-aged woman and her European counterpart. Each is unbelievably, childishly, friendly toward the other and each talk nothing except their own culture. The Chinese woman will usually start such a conversation with broken English and end with a warm invitation of the other to dine at her house.

Unlike others, this saddens me. You know why? Because I know in the very near future, this beautiful, friendly exchange of simple, ignorant friendship will no longer be possible. Soon, both sides will think that this was all a show from their counterpart, completely fake and each will view the other in a negative light. Then will come hurt feelings and bitterness and finally open conflict. This is already starting to happen in China, I think MyLaowai already observed it, and this general change in attitude will be highly disadvantageous to westerners in the future.

This is happening in Europe as well. European governments now think of Chinese merchants as locusts, yes, that’s what they call the Chinese Sovereign Fund. And look at how Europeans reacted to the Olympic Torch Run. From naivete and a lack of understanding will come conflict and bitterness.

That is why I try to be realistic here, by writing genuine observations from both sides so that everyone can understand each other better. Don’t be surprised when I write negative, albeit true things about Europe. Is it surprising? Does it matter that I am Chinese? These sentiments are the same in all people. Anyone else could have observed the same thing.

Today’s Chinese people know more about the West than the West knows about China. Don’t be nervous or afraid about this and certainly don’t think that you westerners can change china into europe. I know this is what MyLaowai and the other laowais want, since nobody wants to live in a foreign environment (I wish the U.S. was more like China too). But this will never happen, I assure you. Sooner or later, Chinese people will realize their folly and revert back to traditional ways. In fact, this is already starting to happen. The more you criticize, the more people like Mylaowai write these blogs, the faster this process will take place. He, by writing nothing except petty farce, by drawing a sarcastic caricature of reality, is dropping a stone on his own foot, as well as the foot of all westerners living in China. I think he was one of the bitter ones who suffered from subjective naivete.

And this brings me to my purpose here, I believe that only through objective reason can there be world peace. Only through trade and interest, which disregards subjective culture, where each sees benefit from the existence of others, can there be sustained peace. Trade is the root cause of liberalism, and it is the sinew that holds the delicate balance in American society, the fulcrum that prevents American society from total collapse. If it could hold a country as diverse as America together, I think it may very well hold the world together as well.

0112337said

Finally, you foreigners have every right to be afraid of the new China. I, along with other Chinese people feel that way too sometimes. The new generation of Chinese children are nearly all spoiled rotten, pampered to death, and went through hell in school during their childhood through brute, soviet style, professional training with no mercy or pity where their parents tell their teachers that it is okay for them to beat their child to death as long as the teacher teaches them. This is a generation of little selfish monsters who all want to be bankers and make money, who view the world in the same merciless way like how the world treated them when they grew up.

0112337said

And by the way Scooby, no offense, but what you wrote on muslims would most definitely be labeled as racism in the States. I don’t know if you are a racist in real life or not. It’s not my business anyways, although if you are one, I do feel bad for your innocent, muslim, students.

So to answer you, I didn’t know. I am libertarian so I feel nothing if you are a racist until (if) you actually impose your racism on someone else. I believe everyone has the right to hold their opinions until those opinions interfere with the interests or lives of others.

Since this is cyberspace and you don’t know who I am, I guess it doesn’t matter. Do you want me to apologize to you? Would that make you feel better?

It is a very reasonable assumption that vast bulk of future Muslim lawyers and future members of the establishment will be British University educated.

Consequently, presumably 40% of them will support the introduction of Sharia law in the UK, while 33% will support a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia law.

If we narrow the field again to the very religiously minded Muslims in British University education, 58% of them support a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia law.

So in response to your propsition, it is a fact that a significant proportion of Muslims who will enter either the legal profession or the establishment have made no bones about the fact that they support the introduction of Sharia law (40%) and even the introduction in of a worldwide Caliphate (33%) based on Sharia law in the UK.

I see no intractable problems looming in this field

In light of the study’s figures that I have outlined above, your position is untenable.

justrecentlysaid

My Granny’s belief that violence against civilian targets can be justified is directed against mosques in Germany – I’m German, not British. Her belief, however, should not easily be equated with a preparedness to go and blow one up herself – just as many of the polled muslims probably won’t go and blow something up themselves. One task is to identify and track those who belong to that violent reserve.

What you fail to see is that people – including muslims – can change their minds, either way, and that it is up to society to show the courage – and spirits – it takes to maintain our freedom.
I suggest that we discuss Chinese totalitarianism once we have ended our discussion about Islam. One at a time.

In light of the study’s figures that I have outlined above, your position is untenable.
I believe that the extrapolition you make here to “show” that future muslim judges will distort justice is untenable. It is a fear, and of course it’s no impossible outcome, but it’s no forecast.
I have stated why I’m thinking about Islam, and the things I believe we can do to counter its totalitarian tendencies.

If you think my position is untenable, I suggest that you tell me what else you do to protect your society, and what you’d recommend I should do to protect mine. Your turn.

But do you guys want to know how the Chinese Communist Party deals with Islamic extremism? Simple. This is a true story I heard from a Han Chinese friend who is from Xinjiang. Back in 2001 there was a fierce uprising amongst uighurs in Xinjiang. They terrorized the Han population as well as Uighur sympathizers. The government immediately called together the “Production Corps” or the “Bing-Tuan” and arranged to have all able bodied Han Chinese men aged 21-50 armed. Then they sent an agent to the leaders of the rebellious islamic extremist organizations to arrange a private meeting…tribal style.

During the meeting, the agent inquired about the reasons for the rebellion, found out it was economically motivated at heart (the rebellious Uighur farmers were jealous that a nearby town got funds for development but they didn’t), so he reported back and then arranged a second meeting. During this meeting he told the leaders that their demands were reasonable, and the party representative for their region has been replaced, the party will soon fork over the funds, but that the village leaders are wrong in starting seditious acts. If this happened again, and the village leaders didn’t follow the tacit grievance procedures set by the party the “Production Corps” will wipe out their entire race. Everyone of Uighur descent from their village will die.

After that, there were no more problems. Everyone was happy, and everyone became wealthier than before. The Uighurs knew they needed the Han’s help to develop their region economically and the Han knew they needed the Uighurs’ resources.

0112337said

Yeah? Are you saying I talk out of my arse because your Uighur friends think they are actually not happy or are you saying I am talking out of my arse because you have contacts in the central government at Beijing who told you otherwise?

The friend I was referring to is a Han boy, 22 years of age, who is from Xinjiang and who is my favorite barber in the barbershop just outside my apartment building. Are you saying he is a liar?

justrecentlysaid

I asked for examples of moderate Muslims (in the UK or around the world) condemning Islamic violence.
Exactly. And whenever they don’t want that violence, rather than condemning islamic violence (which implies that Islam is violent), they will resort to the concept that the perpetrators aren’t muslims in the first place (“unislamic”).
I disagree with that, and I see one of those critical streaks about Islam in that one, too – but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t abide by the law, which is the bottomline.

Scoobydosaid

What you fail to see is that people – including muslims – can change their minds, either way

Of course they can change their minds.

On the other hand, people with strong religious beliefs rarely change their minds.

In fact the opposite usually occurs – a process of group-think occurs where their opinions get even more reinforced.

I believe that the extrapolition you make here to “show” that future muslim judges will distort justice is untenable. It is a fear, and of course it’s no impossible outcome, but it’s no forecast.

40% of Muslim students polled supported the introduction of Sharia into British law for Muslims and a third (33%) supported the introduction of a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia law.

They have clearly and unambiguously stated their Islamic motivated aims.

Quite clearly those Muslims will be pushing for the introduction of Sharia law and for a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia law.

Why on earth do you think they won’t?

They will, in accord with their explicitly stated aims and in accord with their religion, push for justice on an Islamic basis. For a Muslim what could be more pure than Islamic law for Muslims?

Why do you appear to assume that, deep down, those Muslims think like you?

If they did, why do they state they want Sharia law and for a worldwide Caliphate?

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…

I suggest that you tell me what else you do to protect your society, and what you’d recommend I should do to protect mine.

Controlling the number of Muslims emigrating into the EU would be a good start.

Concerted efforts to integrate Muslims into society is also a positive step.

Efforts to convert them to Christianity would also perhaps be a good move (I’m not a Christian by the way).

Immigrants should integrate.

I live in Switzerland now and I wouldn’t dream of pushing for the Swiss to change their society to accommodate any beliefs I held.

And whenever they don’t want that violence, rather than condemning islamic violence (which implies that Islam is violent), they will resort to the concept that the perpetrators aren’t muslims in the first place (“unislamic”).

They do, don’t they.

Most Muslims however just want a quiet life like the rest of us

Sadly, the violent ones (who appear around the world to be quite successful at dominating the moderate ones) need to look no further than their founder Muhammad to find justification for violence when spreading their faith.

To quote Muhammad

“I was ordered to fight all men until they say “There is no god but Allah””

Muhammad was, historically, a very successful military warlord who fought a number of pitched large scale battles against the Byzantine empire and was also a documented caravan raider (his source of revenue and means to pay his army) who also successfully attacked cities and then massacred some of the populations.

A man of peace he wasn’t. The facts outlined above are documented in Islamic texts including the Koran.

It then strikes me as strange when Muslims talk about Islam as a religion of peace when its founder was a historically documented warlord (who spread Islam by violence once Islam was strong enough) and who’s Islamic followers have, for the last 1,400 years largely spread their religion by the sword.

Spreading by the sword (they conquered 3/4s of the old Christian world before being stopped at the gates of Vienna) and imposing a prohibitive tax only on non Muslims to force them to convert.

justrecentlysaid

Of course I know that my understanding is limited, and subject to misinterpretations. But that won’t keep me from assessing situations – and it won’t keep me from saying things you or others may find offensive. I value freedom of thought and of peech. Give me good reasons to reconsider my views, and I’ll do just that. Tell me that I’m an arrogant asshole, and I’ll think that I’ve probably hit some nail on the head.

My observation that society is dumbing down has a lot to do with peoples’ attention span – not with their religious views, or their views of certain religions. I’m using the term “mortified people” to describe those who, in my view, get into unreasonable fits of rage without related inducements. Different mortified people will spot different (supposed or real) victimizers. Depending on their individual past, it can be understandable – but a lot of people will go ballistic anyway, and frequently, on very different issues.

It’s a human habit to try to explain ones peeves or crusades with particularly noble motives. Rather radical muslims of that kind will in all likelihood use their religion – something which is quite a dominant factor in their lives anyway. But that’s not to say that this is all we need to know to explain or understand a religion. The Quran contains much more juicy bits of violence, but even the New Testament has its crazy streaks – just try Luke 12:49.
Both Christianity and Islam had or have their bloody times in history. Emphasiszing one or another side of them for shaping their future development – depending on awareness – is, as far as I can see, a matter of choice, even for believers. As you said yourself, liberalism is a rather new way of thought in history.
The main reason why the focus is on Islam isn’t because of the nature of the religion, nor because of its history. It’s because of the state it is in in our lifetimes.

In fact the opposite usually occurs – a process of group-think occurs where their opinions get even more reinforced.“Efforts to convert them to Christianity would also perhaps be a good move (I’m not a Christian by the way).”
These two statements don’t look consistent to me. Besides, I know only one muslim myself who switched from Islam to Christianity, and I know quite a lot of muslims after all. What I do understand about religion is that it is a very personal matter, and where it becomes a political one, I think it would serve both religion and politics better if they stayed apart. Religious believers may have reasons to missionize, but I’m no faithful Christian.

Quite clearly those Muslims will be pushing for the introduction of Sharia law and for a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia law.
Why on earth do you think they won’t?
Remember Saddam Hussein – reportedly – telling the Americans that they would meet with the mother of all battles, in the early 1990s? For another choice of quotes (no warranty for accuracy), see here.
Big words in “holy wars” are nothing unusual. That’s not to say that I’m relying on things “not getting that bad”. People can live up to their words, and many will. But I don’t take every piece of bragging at face value.
I do what I see as my responsibility in this field (I’m not elaborating on this, because I value privacy on the internet), and I won’t sacrifice the openness of my society – or the openness of my own character – for an ill-conceived idea of security (or “certainty”), which would only help fundamentalism. In other words, I won’t commit suicide for fear of death. That said (and I’m telling you this because it might help you to understand that I’m not into appeasement or false compromise), I will do whatever I believe it takes to defend freedom, within and without. I’m true to my beliefs. I chose to do my compulsory service for the state in the army – not in a civilian job -, and I know how to handle guns.

The best a society can do to convince people is to work on its own improvement in accordance with its own values. There is no need to please or accomodate fundamentalists – the better we know what we want, the better we will get ahead of them.
No human mind is static, and nothing will predetermine the outcome of a big and serious competition. If I, just to please you, would say something like “Yes, Scoobydo, I can see all your points, and I concur with them”, would that make you feel better? And if so, why is that?

what you said should be done, reControlling the number of Muslims emigrating into the EU would be a good start.
Concerted efforts to integrate Muslims into society is also a positive step. amounts to government tasks.
amounts to government tasks. Good policies are important, but they won’t simply come from the top. The best of society grows where politics only cares about the framework. Individual attitudes, preparedness to help, or to stand up to bullies (islamist or otherwise) matter more, and are essential. They are also the actual prerequisites for a good policy.

Chinese Netizensaid

Scoobydosaid

Tell me that I’m an arrogant asshole, and I’ll think that I’ve probably hit some nail on the head.

You are far from that. You come over as a open and intelligent individual.

I fear however that you appear to believe that other people subscribe to your values even when the overwhelming evidence points otherwise.

It’s called perception filtering (self perception bias). It is a process in which an individual focuses on information that agrees with their pre-existing opinion and disregards information that contradicts it.

“A person’s perception is a unique picture or image of the real world leads to a biased view that fits into people’s perceptions of reality

However, when a Muslim explicitly states that he wants Sharia law for Muslims but you ignore that information because you are sure that really he doesn’t, you are exhibiting an acute example of the psychological perception bias.

Quite clearly those Muslims will be pushing for the introduction of Sharia law and for a worldwide Caliphate based on Sharia law.

Why on earth do you think they won’t?

Remember Saddam Hussein – reportedly – telling the Americans that they would meet with the mother of all battles, in the early 1990s?

Big words in “holy wars” are nothing unusual.

But Saddam Hussein wanted the mother of all battles to occur and did everything in his power to make it happen. He planned to draw the Allies into a long attritional battle in the manner of the ones Iraq had spent fighting Iran for 10 years.

The fact he didn’t happen wasn’t through any lack of resolve on his part – the allies stopped him Iraq being able to put up an effective defence.

So are you seriously suggesting that Muslims who say they want Sharia law for Muslims and a worldwide Caliph based on Sharia law are only just saying that?!!?!

And your example is Saddam Hussein’s quotes of intent that were thwarted by the Allies as evidence that Muslims don’t actually mean what the say?

Wow. Trust me. They mean it.

Dead down, they don’t think like you.

Dead down they don’t want a Western liberal legal system…they want Sharia law for Muslims and a worldwide Caliph based on Sharia law!

How do I know? Because they said so.

Using your own logic, can I assume that you really want Sharia law? After all you have said you don’t.

justrecentlysaid

You believe that exactly the number of people who say they want the Shariah law really want it when they get the chance. I said that I don’t take every piece of bragging at face value, but I’m not relying on things “not getting that bad”. People can live up to their words, and many will. Do you think this really makes our assessment of the dangers that different? We aren’t arguing about the dangers from Islamic fundamentalism here – we disagree about how we read polls. If a muslim explicitly tells me, personally, and not via a poll, that he wants shariah law, I will believe him or her, of course.

If this thread was about surveys among East Germans (I read one or two in the past saying that a significant number of East Germans would like to have the wall back), I believe we whould argue – with more ease than when it is about Islamism -, about the possibility that, say, only sixty or ninty per cent of those who said so would leap at a real-life chance to get it back if it came around, and others would think again. And maybe – but I can be wrong – you wouldn’t suspect in such a case that I’m showing an acute example of the psychological perception bias if I argued that there may be cases where – for example – ill feelings about individual problems after 1989 led to the desire to “have the wall back”. After all, something around ten per cent expressing that desire may be a surprise when learning about them first, but they pose no danger comparable with islamism.

I can’t disprove your interpretation of Saddam’s threats in the early 1990s. But that doesn’t prove its accuracy either. I believe that Saddam wanted to mobilize his – mainly muslim after all – people for the Kuwait war, and he wanted to discourage the allied forces from driving his troops out of Kuwait. Deterrence in general was usually one of his high priorities (when he wasn’t on the attack himself).

I said that I believe that muslims, too, can change their mind. No matter if the number of those who really want shariah law is 40 per cent, or less, or more, the task is to get more support for a judiciary that remains independent. From your suggestion that efforts should be made to convert muslims to christians, I take it that we both believe that muslims can change their mind (although we disagree about the usefulness of conversions to christianity to achieve changes of minds).

Obviously, we can’t be sure that we will be successful in defending our freedom. Only mass evictions based on religious affiliation could be a safe bet – and would (even if “safe”), corrupt rule of law. So would many other repressive steps. Only civil war could change the rules.

My impression so far is that we agree about that. But if you think that an acute perception bias of mine is relevant or in the way of helpful conclusions here, maybe we should have another try to identify them.

“If this thread was about surveys among East Germans … …only sixty or ninty per cent of those who said so would leap at a real-life chance to get it back if it came around, and others would think again”

You are drawing a flawed parallel.

East Germans and 2nd or 3rd generation UK Muslim immigrants are very different groups of people.

The latter group possesses a strong sense of alienation from its ‘adopted’ country and has been becoming more and more radicalised while the East Germans have not.

How many East Germans support West German civilians getting blow up on trains in the name of religion?

“You believe that exactly the number of people who say they want the Shariah law really want it when they get the chance.”

Why assume that 2nd or 3rd generation UK Muslim immigrants are foolish enough to explicitly state a religious objective in a poll that strikes at the heart of the secularism of their ‘adopted’ state?

How foolish would you have to be to tell British people, conducting a poll, that your support blowing British civilians up on the tube by Islamic fanatics?

Yet the UK has 528,000 British Muslims (22%) who admitted just that. How high is the true figure?

How high is the true figure of UK Muslim students who want to introduce Sharia law and a worldwide Islamic Caliphate?

“I said that I believe that muslims, too, can change their mind. No matter if the number of those who really want shariah law is 40 per cent, or less, or more,,,” ”

As you say, some Muslims who currently oppose Sharia law (or pretend to) could in the future change their minds to support it.

How many more will be largely indifferent and will stand back and allow Sharia law to be introduced?

Lets face it, moderate Muslims around the world have a truly terrible record at moderating their extremists.

I would content that Muslims at University are a reasonably intelligent bunch, intelligent enough for a significant proportion to have the sense to keep quiet about their religiously motivated aims to replace secular law with Sharia law and to introduce a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Consequently, it is likely that cuurently much more than 40% of them support Sharia law and more than 33% support a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

How stupid would you have to be to tell a secular pollster that you want to introduce a worldwide Islamic caliphate in their country?

Yet 33% of British University Muslims did just that. How much higher is the true figure?

I would also contend that it is likely that many that currently don’t support Sharia law will change their minds to do so when they see their community moving in that direction.

I also predict that moderate Muslims will continue to do what they have done around the world for the last 20 years – say nothing and keep their heads down.

justrecentlysaid

Alright then, Scoobydo – let’s not take this to unnecessary lengths. I believe that you have a clear picture of what radical and moderate muslims respectively are going to do, and I have no fixed picture of future developments.
But meantime, do you have a plan about what you are going to contribute yourself to keeping your society in a reasonable state?

Ssaid

Scoobydosaid

“The Policy Exchange report, Living Together Apart: British Muslims and the Paradox of Multiculturalism — says there is strong evidence of a “growing religiosity” among young Muslims, with an increasing minority firmly rejecting Western life.

Munira Mirza, the broadcaster and one of the authors of the report, argued that multicultural policies pursued by the Government had succeeded in making things worse, rather than better.

She said: “The emergence of a strong Muslim identity in Britain is, in part, a result of multi-cultural policies implemented since the 1980s which have emphasised difference at the expense of shared national identity and divided people along ethnic, religious and cultural lines.

“Britain’s foreign policies were a key issue among the Muslim population as a whole, with 58 per cent arguing that many of the world’s problems are “a result of arrogant Western attitudes”.

However, knowledge of foreign affairs was sketchy, with only one in five knowing that Mahmoud Abbas was the Palestinian president.

The findings emerged as David Cameron, the Conservative leader, criticised the Government for trying to “bully” immigrant communities into feeling British by telling them to run up the Union flag in their gardens or spy on their children.

So we have a Muslim (Munira Mirza) saying the problem is partly caused by the government’s push for multi-centralism at the expense of trying to forge a common British identity, while Cameron (now the British PM) decides the exact opposite – its because Muslims are being pressured into being British.

I personally feel that economic factors play a large part. For instance, long term unemployment figures which are approaching the great depression levels but are hidden by the official figures.

Certainly youth unemployment in the UK is massive.

How can you expect young Muslims to feel part of a society in which they can’t even get a job paying enough to rent a flat?

Sadly, that is the elephant in the room that no UK politician will acknowledge as it would reveal how massively understated both the official government unemployment figures and the official inflation figures are.

The logic of allowing hundreds of thousands of unskilled immigrants into the UK when there are already hundreds and hundreds of thousands of unskilled native British people who can’t find a job, escapes me.

Chinese Netizensaid

They get all uppity and discover their freedoms in a place that accepts them in as citizens from where they were never able to exercise them freely before then try to oppress everyone henceforth in their new home.

They get all uppity and discover their freedoms in a place that accepts them in as citizens from where they were never able to exercise them freely before then try to oppress everyone henceforth in their new home.

0112337said

The fight of words on blind, racist, speculation of foreigners has gotten hotter than ever!!

To the left lies the champion from central Europe, the mysterious fighter JR who hails from Germany. His position is clear and is unwavering.

And to the right is the self proclaimed profe extraordinaire from the UK. He delivers a powerful left right 3-2 combo with a nasty blow from behind by quoting his own country’s bbc.

Can JR make a come-back or is he down for the count? Who will win? Who will know?

Wait…wait…JR is coming back with a surprise sneak attack! He is calling forth his grandmother. Who would have thought? Can they double team and double slam the illustrious, unstoppable Scooby? I see the determined stare in his eyes!

Ladies and Gentlemen, cast your bets now. Bet on your winner for this marvelous, curious, debate of racist, speculative, nonsense. The fate of Europe and its muslim immigrants hangs in the balance.

One of the tricks to running a successful blog (which this is, judging by the traffic and the awards), is knowing when to say your piece and knowing when to shut up and let other people say theirs. My piece is generally the bit at the top, and you won’t often find much from me in the comments section unless something particularly needs my attention.

Your recockulously idiotic comment, 0112337, marks just such an occasion.

It shouldn’t surprise me, really, that you are unable to recognise an intelligent and reasoned debate, because no such thing is possible in the Land Of Your Ancestors. That however, does not excuse you from the fact that you have come here and interrupted other people who do.

Be advised, if you have nothing intelligent to say as part of this discussion, then keep your typing hand on your penis and say nothing.

Sh*t nigga, I stand corrected. Iff you cunt see dat I am insulting zis here “successful” blog by makin fun of yu an’ others, thru dis language den you are takin the fun out of the process. Ah neva thought you fools were serious, nor did I think the fools reading were serious.

I am insulting YOU and the others thru dis language to convey my disgust and displeasure. Get it? My purpose here is to vent and I will post intelligent insights when I wish to, and I will act like a fenqing or a sarcastic, farcical, backwaters Australian village peasant like you when I want.

On the other hand, you should devote your time to your business rather than acting like a peasant fool seeing the world the first time, where everything is amazing and worthy of sarcastic farce. You are a mature businessman, aren’t you? and not a 20 something blog master? If you are in your twenties I will say no more. You are making a fool of yourself by devoting so much time to this blog and your actions are an insult to the collective image of all businesspeople. Businesspeople don’t talk politics, you should know that.

I can’t believe you actually have high traffic volume. Europeans are lazier and dumber than I thought. This must be why Europe is decaying in general.

justrecentlysaid

Some of your recommendations look like if I’m ignoring this coverage, Scoobydo. But these are no obscurantist media; they are mainstream. So even if I’m reading less at the moment, I’m still reading them.

As I said before, I’m aware that there are muslims who are out of reach for any reasonable argument, and unable to use their brains for anything else than advancing their “cause”. But then, the only thing to do is to wait until they can be caught red-handed. The rest is a matter of criminal prosecution.

In fact, the Koran is clear that Muslims have a religious duty to dominate any society it finds itself in.
Interestingly, Muslims are expressly allowed, according to the Koran, to be duplicitous while doing so.
It’s an interesting aspect of Islam, Scoobydo. But I only care about it if a muslim really sees such a duty for himself. If not, I don’t care. To be honest, I had expected polling results worse than those you quoted before – from impressions of my own when I was in Britain last time (five years or more ago, I think). But I have also explained how I read the polls, and I don’t want to repeat myself too often.

A central point I see is that the moderate muslims are your fellow citizens, and they have no more duties than you or I to deal with the problems that stem from radicals, merely for the reason that they and the radicals are both muslims. They are obliged to abide by the law, and that’s compulsory. The rest is voluntary. That’s how our societies are made, and that’s why the voluntary part depends on us – not on the state in the first place.

You are not a 2nd or 3rd generation UK Muslim immigrant yourself, so why do you assume that your position is a natural one for such Muslims to move towards? (#21)
True. But nor are you (if I’m reading your previous comments right), muslims aren’t clones of their prophet, and there is no reason to believe that they all read the Quran in the same way.

I have no right to demand a muslim fellow citizen telling me how he or she views our society and his or her role in our society. A muslim has no right to have me tell him or her my views either. Neither of us is an interrogator. Either of us can ask questions, and if there is a chance to get to talk, that’s very helpful. And of course, I can’t read peoples’ minds. But then, they can’t read my mind either.

“The emergence of a strong Muslim identity in Britain is, in part, a result of multi-cultural policies implemented since the 1980s which have emphasised difference at the expense of shared national identity and divided people along ethnic, religious and cultural lines.” (#24)
I personally feel that economic factors play a large part. For instance, long term unemployment figures which are approaching the great depression levels but are hidden by the official figures. (#24)
I had thought about writing something into the direction of your latter lines myself, but didn’t, because I thought it could come across as some kind of relativism. But I agree – people (including muslims) who depend on their business partners and customers, and depend on them, will usually have a different attitude towards society, than marginalized people.

No matter how correct or incorrect the polls may be, all people who are citizens of the same country must learn to live with each other, if they haven’t learned that long before. It doesn’t matter who makes the first step in whatever kind of situation. But we won’t get anywhere as people of families who have lived in their respective countries for many generations and are part of its culture unless we know ourselves, respect ourselves, and keep building on what we have inherited (the earlier lines of your comment #24).

And while doing that, we’ll may have to leave a lot of other things beyond our control to chance. That’s life in an open society.

“They are obliged to abide by the law, and that’s compulsory. The rest is voluntary. That’s how our societies are made, and that’s why the voluntary part depends on us – not on the state in the first place.”

Actually that’s not quite how the rule of law functions, when it functions. The most effective legal system is one that does NOT rely principally upon compulsion, but on voluntary cooperation. A social order based mainly upon force is a police state, not a rule of law.

Voluntary cooperation with the law is, in turn, based principally upon cultural consensus. (This is not just speculative; centuries of jurisprudential scholarship and legal history have demonstrated it.) It remains questionable whether cultures such as those of most – although not all – Muslims are compatible with the kinds of cultural concensuses required to sustain open societies such as that of the UK whose indigenous culture and legal tradition has been, willy nilly, considerably informed by Christianity as well as by pre-Christian European customs and norms which are arguably incompatible with most forms of Islam.

But then of course I’m just a stupid bigot in need of thought reform administered by enlightened journalists and academics and other bureaucrats. ;-)

PS, to the above list of UK cultural consensuses I should have also included post-Christians ones such as the Englightenment. No Islamic nation has ever had an Enlightenment, although some selected consequences of the Englightenment – most especially Nationalism – have informed what is today called “Islamic Fundamentalism”. Similarly, the Japanese Imperialism of the 1930s-40s and Chinese Nationalist-Communism were considerably informed by the European Enlightenment.

Scoobydosaid

A central point I see is that the moderate Muslims are your fellow citizens, and they have no more duties than you or I to deal with the problems that stem from radicals, merely for the reason that they and the radicals are both Muslims.

I did know an Indian man and his family who were driven out of their village in fear of their life, when the Muslims became strong enough to ethnically cleanse it.

He was of the opinion that moderate Muslims keep quiet because, at the end of the day, they are happy to live in an Islamic state.

It is interesting that you feel that members of a group have no responsibility to control their own extremists.

Did moderate members of the Japanese government in WWII have no responsibility to moderate the extremist elements of the Japanese government, who were happy to preside over war crimes in China?

Apparently not, according to you.

…True. But nor are you (a 2nd or 3rd generation Muslim), Muslims aren’t clones of their prophet, and there is no reason to believe that they all read the Quran in the same way.

You raise a few interesting points.

(1) While neither you nor I are 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims, I take those Muslims at their word.

40% of British Muslim students in polls have stated they want Sharia law. 33% have stated they want a worldwide caliphate and 33% have stated that killing in the name of Islam is justified.

You on the other appear to take the position that they don’t really mean it but rather (secretly) agree with your secular position.

I make no claim that 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims think like me.

You on the other do.

(2) It is true that Muslims are not clones of the prophet. Many Muslims don’t take Islam terribly seriously.

Many however do.

Muhammad lead a ‘perfect’ life according to Islam. A perfect life in Islam is a life that should be emulated. In other words, if ordinary Muslims try to lead their life like Muhammad, then they are a very good Muslim.

In other words, if ordinary Muslims kill Jews that oppose Islam (Muhammad beheaded all the males of one Jewish tribe), attack infidel caravans, assassinate critics and take over non Muslim societies by force in the name of Islam, they are emulating Muhammad’s ‘perfect life’.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Do secular defenders of Islam actually ever research what the Koran and other Islamic holy writing actually tell us about Muhammad’s life and how Muslims consider his life as perfect?

Apparently not.

Of course some will point out that the Bible contains just as blood curdling passages.

Actually, it doesn’t. The last time I read the Bible, Jesus didn’t spread his teaching by the sword, Jesus didn’t attack cities and then massacre tribes of Jews, Jesus didn’t assassinate his critics, nor did Jesus teach his followers to lie to non Christians to spread Christianity.

As I say, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

(3) there is no reason to believe that they all read the Quran in the same way

Apparently, after reading it, at least a third of British Muslim students read it in such a way that killing in the name if Islam is justified, 33% feel it justifies a worldwide caliphate and 40% are of the opinion that it support the introduction of Sharia law in the UK.

0112337said

“Of course some will point out that the Bible contains just as blood curdling passages.

Actually, it doesn’t. The last time I read the Bible, Jesus didn’t spread his teaching by the sword, Jesus didn’t attack cities and then massacre tribes of Jews, Jesus didn’t assassinate his critics, nor did Jesus teach his followers to lie to non Christians to spread Christianity.”

No, Jesus didn’t do that, but God did. God, the father of Jesus, murdered all first born children of an Egyptian town just because the pharaoh refused to allow the Jews to leave.

“Jesus didn’t assassinate his critics, nor did Jesus teach his followers to lie to non Christians to spread Christianity.”

Jesus didn’t do that, but God sanctioned the Israelites’ ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites.

Modern biblical historians believe that the ancient Israelites were a cunning group of mercenary warriors who ethnically cleansed their neighbors in order to steal their lands and they used God as a way to justify it. Just like how Europeans justified the crusades hundreds of years ago.

They also claimed that Moses was a talented military commander who got speared in the back because his own people lost faith in him. God didn’t prevent him from entering Canaan, his own people did.

I can’t make this stuff up either. Anyone can verify this and I know that chump Rapunzel will for sure.

All aramaic religions are evil.

The Qu’ran is infinitely more poetic and respectful of the reader than the bible. The former earnestly pleads the reader to turn to islam while the latter treats the reader as slaves incapable of thought. Read it, and you will see the difference.

justrecentlysaid

I’ll come back to your issue – for now, I can imagine that my understanding of the rule of law stems from a comparatively corporatist conditioning of mine. But I’ll read and think about it more closely later this week.

Scoobydo:

even if you take the 40 per cent quoted as wanting shariah law by their word, there would – according to the poll, that is – still be 60 per cent who think otherwise. You seem to take the polls as evidence that obligations can be defined for every individual that belongs to the islamic denomination. I don’t believe that the polls can serve to this end.

For clarification (if need be), I said that moderate muslims had no more duties than you or I to deal with the problems that stem from radicals. I’m not sure if I’m using English here correctly – but I believe that by this, I said that you can’t demand more from them, than from non-muslims. They do, for example, have responsibilities to the society once they find out about preparations for capital crimes (I’m not sure about the correct use of this term, but I don’t think that every offense against every law needs to be reported). And of course, no thoughts should be wasted on the question if a capital crime is religiously motivated, or otherwise motivated.

You can read from the Quran that muslims are obliged to use all means – legal and illegal – to spread their religion and to dominate others. But moderate muslims aren’t obliged to convince you of their peaceful intentions either, other than by abiding to the law. They have exactly the same rights as non-muslims, so long as the rule of law isn’t compromised. A religious denomination, by law, is different from being a member of a political party or a cabinet, and comes with different responsibilities. I see no particular obligations for myself as a non-believing Christian other than paying church tax (a German distincitive feature, as far as I know).
Your question about the Japanese really amounts to the question to which lengths American-born Japanese should have gone to moderate the extremist elements of the Japanese government. Be careful that you don’t walk into a totalitarian trap yourself.

You can, on the other hand, take some more complicated steps than we are doing here to reflect on the degree islamic religion may – or may not – oblige muslims to make their religion dominate the world. Many things you criticize my approach for are actually a condition of thought that is hard to escape, and may distort your perception no less than mine, only into a different direction – it may indeed be perception bias (#19). The link I’m providing is not to suggest that I agree with the content. But I believe it shows that reading mainstream media plus other sources of information is important.

Do secular defenders of Islam actually ever research what the Koran and other Islamic holy writing actually tell us about Muhammad’s life and how Muslims consider his life as perfect?

Let me give you some spontaneous feedback about my feelings now, against my usual habit. Your line about “secular defenders of Islam is the first one of yours that makes me feel angry, because I start suspecting that expressing my views here is a waste of time.
No, I do no research on religion, when applying my own understanding of what research is. That would involve much more than the word seems to suggest to a lot of people. “Research”, these days, can mean doing “some internet research”, to reading a bestseller, or to do some real work to understand a matter. But I do keep myself informed, and I’m making the best possible use of my knowledge.
I’m no secular defender of islam. I’m a secular defender of the open society. If that doesn’t begin to sink in, I see no use in taking this discussion further.

“Ned…I can imagine that my understanding of the rule of law stems from a comparatively corporatist conditioning of mine.”

It also stems from your being a German, the most bureaucratically-minded and most abstract culture in the West. And although I’m not sure if you might also be Jewish as well as German, you of all people know that to be a Jew is NOT contrary to being a German, in good AND bad ways of those overlapping and (for Germans) inseparable cultures.

I think it could reasonably argued that Modern Age Germany’s greatness, in both good AND evil ways, and wise AND foolish ways, was inseparable from the contributions of Jewish Germans. After all, the God of the Old Testament has been compared to “a computer, with lots of rules and no mercy”, and what could be more German than that? ;-)

Scoobydosaid

A religious denomination, by law, is different from being a member of a political party or a cabinet, and comes with different responsibilities.

Islam is both a religious and a political entity, in the manner of the Catholic church in the middle ages.

Turkey and Algeria periodically have to stage military coups to prevent the Islamic hardliners abolishing democracy.

Hence, with Islam, any distinction between a religious and a political entity ignores the objective fact that, around the world, Islam has clearly demonstrated itself to be both.

Your question about the Japanese really amounts to the question to which lengths American-born Japanese should have gone to moderate the extremist elements of the Japanese government.

The UK has plenty of home grown extremists so I really was saying that British Muslims have a duty to moderate extremist British Muslims.

I’m no secular defender of islam. I’m a secular defender of the open society. If that doesn’t begin to sink in, I see no use in taking this discussion further.

Actually, I wasn’t actually meaning you when I wrote that.

You haven’t defended Islam. Just its right to exist irrespective of its stated goals.

If Islam was just a benign religious entity, then I would agree with you.

However, even the PM of turkey has made it clear, in the past, that he would abolish democracy if he got the chance and replace it with an Islamic state.

In the end, it does boil down to the ethical question, should we defend the rights of organisations to exist in a democracy that wish to destroy democracy?

If we do, then we should bear in mind that these things don’t look after themself.

They need a strong secular military (aka Algeria and Turkey) that is willing to launch coups to preserve democracy. The military in Turkey are currently viewing the Turkish PM with great suspicion.

Recently, the police Turkey uncovered a military plot to launch a coup by the military and arrested a host of military Turkish generals. Hence there is no guarantee that the military can preserve democracy. Even if they can, we can look forward to tanks being periodically on the streets.

I would rather not live in a society like that. I not sure that the word ‘open’ is the first word that springs to mind in such a society.

I also found these words by JR to be interesting, because they warrant a little lesson about the difference between (most kinds of) Islam and (the main kind of) Christianity, aka Catholicism:

“…the degree islamic religion may – or may not – oblige muslims to make their religion dominate the world.”

My response: Isn’t the WAY in which Muslims are obliged to make their religion “dominate the world”, more important than the DEGREE? Isn’t QUALITY more important than (quantitative) proportions? For example, the Mormons are obliged to try to convert the entire world to Mormonism, 100 percent, but as long as they use peaceful and honest methods, they pose no threat to civic order.

Similarly regarding Catholicism in particular – and to my mind it’s an especially important example, because it’s my own religion but ALSO because it’s the largest Christian denomination in the world, larger than all other combined – DID you know, JR, that the Catholic Church totally ESCHEWS FORCE in conversions? And this isn’t something new; contrary to common propaganda, the Catholic Church’s position has ALWAYS been that a religious conversion made under force, is not a valid one.

Yes, Catholicism DOES aspire to convert the entire world. But UNLIKE Islam, Catholicism ESCHEWS the use of force in conversion. And yes I know that sounds inconsistent with the histories (both true and mostly false ones) of the Catholic “Inquisitions”, but the historical fact is that the “Inquisition” never attempted to convert anyone by force. Yes they used torture (which the Church later repudiated), but they used it exclusively to compel confessions of heresy, NOT to force CONVERSION, and although that’s a very fine distinction, it remains a true and profound difference between the Catholic and Muslim beliefs about the means of conversion. In short, regardless of the myriad crimes and sins that so many Catholic leaders inflicted upon perceived or actual “heretics”, the fact remains constant and indisputable that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS NEVER ACCEPTED FORCIBLE CONVERSION, but most Muslims HAVE done so, including Muhammed.

In short and in sum: Regardless of the myriad crimes committed by intolerant Catholics upon perceived heretics and non-Christians, the truth remains that the Church has NEVER advocated force as a means of conversion – while in contrast, forcible conversion is the ESSENCE of Islam!

Coda: The Catholic Church’s “Crusades” in the Middle Ages were not to convert the Muslims, but to conquer Palestine. (Whether those Crusades were evil is a different question.) But the ESSENCE of Islam, from its conception by Muhammed, has been and remains to “convert” the world by physical force.

Qur’an 2:24 – A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones.

The koran is full of quotes that make the status of non Muslims very clear. Actually, you could fill a small novel with it all.

Sura 2:98- Allah is an enemy to unbelievers.

Qur’an 2:99 – Only evil people are disbelievers.

Qur’an 2:191 – Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don’t kill them.).

Qur’an 2:193 – Fight them until “religion is for Allah.

Qur’an 41:14 – Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell

Qur’an 47:4 – When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens.

Qur’an 48:25 – Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another.

Qur’an 48:29 – Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers.

Qur’an 66:9 – Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate.

Qur’an 98:51 – The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.

Doesn’t Islam historically force non Muslims to pay a prohibitive tax? (and to not carry weapons or be able to ride a horse – a donkey was allowed)

Qur’an 9:29 – Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. –

Islam allows non believers to worship their own god.

On the other hand, it wants all of the political power for itself.

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. – Sura 2:193 and 8:39

justrecentlysaid

You haven’t defended Islam. Just its right to exist irrespective of its stated goals.
If Islam was just a benign religious entity, then I would agree with you.
The “ummah” of believers as a binding congregation of all muslims, with a binding set of rules that bind them too, is an illusion, just as “Arab unity” is an illusion. Either of the two could take shape in the future, but this would become a very hypothetical discussion for now.

I believe it is discretionary to view islam as a single entity. It doesn’t have a universally-agreed hierarchy, neither in terms of imams and other functionaries, nor in terms of beliefs. Many of them are fundamentalists, but not necessarily with an identical ideology. And many muslims, liberal-minded ones included, fiercely believe that only they interpret islam correctly (just as, or that’s how it looks to me, you fiercely believe that only you interpret islam correctly).

I’d like to leave Turkey out of my comments for now, and to focus on European issues.

In the end, it does boil down to the ethical question, should we defend the rights of organisations to exist in a democracy that wish to destroy democracy?
No, we should defend every citizen’s individual rights, and defend their rights against organizations that exist to destroy our societies. I wrote earlier in this thread thatI’m not suggesting that all civil rights can be protected under all circumstances, but in most cases when they were or are violated (including violations in the current “war on terrorism”), they were violated for convenience and ideological reasons, rather than for real necessity.

In other words: I’m aware that the nature of certain islamic groupings – and individuals – may force us in the future to compromise our own standards to fight successfully against extremists. But so far, the situation doesn’t warrant that kind of despair. A military coup, or a civil war, could only be carried out in a desperate situation. We aren’t in that kind of situation. Even when judging the options from a practical, rather than ethical position, military coups, civil wars, or running autocracy aren’t our best skills – they would put us at disadvantage against extremists (to put this carefully).

We are living in an environment and on a continent where we can do much better than that. We can convince people on the sidelines of the opportunities our grown national – or civilizational – identities can offer.

The UK has plenty of home grown extremists so I really was saying that British Muslims have a duty to moderate extremist British Muslims.
A legal or a moral duty, Scoobydo? And either way, why do you emphasize such a duty for muslim British citizens, without mentioning duties of non-muslim British citizens? Aren’t their duties identical?

To react to your latest comments, Scoobydo and Ned, I’m most interested in what people make of their religion. I’m sometimes also interested in the qualities of peoples’ religions, but I am more interested in peoples’ individual qualities.
But no matter if you quote a few lines about the status of non Muslims in the Quran, or the whole novel: the quantity of surahs into one and into the other directions won’t decide the outcome.

Ned: I’m not jewish (as far as I can tell), but I wouldn’t mind if I was, although it would be difficult to figure if and how that would change my life.
But for some reason (I’m not sure for which one), I was sure that sooner or later, someone on the internet would ask me if I were jewish. It’s no contradiction to be a jewish German – but not only the nazis, but a lot of “common people”, too, have tried to forget that many of those who serve this country best are jewish, and that many jews who were killed or expelled last century had previously distinguished themselves in world war 1. Many people here, if you ask them, won’t be aware of that.

But much of the heritage is still here.

I will slow down on this topic for a while to step back and loosen up. But if can see that we aren’t going in circles, I’ll be back.

If cruel, violent, intolerant and unjust verses out number good verses by a factor of 24 to 1, it would suggest very strongly, that the Koran is indeed a book promoting violence, intolerance and injustice.

Some Korans in English have about 600 pages (30 chapters and 114 sub chapters).

The Koran has 3 verses we would percive as cruel, violent, intolerant or unjust on every page!

On the other hand, we have to wait 8 pages to find a verse we would percieve as ehtical or tolerant.

Yes, that’s exactly what I said in my prior comment. (And I happen to be partly of German-Jewish descent, with both good and ill effects ;-)

But then, “Jews” are NOT a “race” and NOT a “nationality”, and not a unified religion either; “Jews” are one of the most “racially” and culturally AND religiously diverse “groups” in the World. In that light, I submit for the enjoyment of MyLaowai and his male (NON-“LGBT-BLT-alphabet-sandwich-etc”) readers, the incredibly beautiful ARABIC Jew, Paula Abdul, the daughter of an Arabic-Syrian Jew, as one of THE MOST PERSUASIVE arguments against antisemitism:

justrecentlysaid

No Islamic nation has ever had an Enlightenment, although some selected consequences of the Englightenment – most especially Nationalism – have informed what is today called “Islamic Fundamentalism”. Similarly, the Japanese Imperialism of the 1930s-40s and Chinese Nationalist-Communism were considerably informed by the European Enlightenment.Ned, a muslim’s life in a scular environment, and at peace with people of different and no religions, is nothing impossible. That much is based on my own observation. I’m not even sure if it would have helped if Islam had gone through an enlightenment similar to Europe’s. What matters is that the achievements from enlightenment here won’t be reversed. A muslim, as well as a christian or a jew, can take personal decisions that correspond best with his or her own character, without seeking for islamic domination – after all, there are living examples for such decisions. If you want to, you can find a lot of muslim success stories – and if, on the other hand, you want to have your worries or angers confirmed, you will find a lot of examples for that, too. The Quran alone can’t determine what is going to happen. If it could do that – and if the surahs Scoobydo has quoted determined it as much as he suggests, Europe would have been in flames years ago, and we would all still be fighting in its ruins now. There is more daily evidence against your concerns, than evidence supporting them.
Let me address one future argument in advance. You may say that a secular can’t understand the power of religion. But then, I believe, religious people probably overestimate the power of religion. There can be muslims who believe less fervently in their scriptures, than you believe in yours. This may be beyond your imagination, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

I think I have made my own concerns and reservations about islam clear enough. But I’m wondering how you, Scoobydo, can expect a moderate muslim to agree with positions and demands like yours. To me, once in a while, demands from non-muslims on moderate muslim fellow citizens come across as unjustifiable, and even shameless – a man or woman who did no wrong should be beyond criticism for his or her religion. But so long as demands to “confess” something or to “commit” to something don’t come with discriminatory law, a moderate muslim should not allow such demands to mortify him or her, either. I’m wondering how much further the reservations of your fellow citizens against Islam would have to go until they would make you feel better. In my view, you are asking for too much security – or knowledge about other peoples’ minds – than what seems fit in an open society. There is always the possibility that we will need to fight. But chances are that we can live with each other in peace in Europe – provided that neither inappropriate naivety nor a drive to heap unreasonable blame on each other will rule us.

Scoobydosaid

But I’m wondering how you, Scoobydo, can expect a moderate muslim to agree with positions and demands like yours.

If moderate British Muslims cannot bring themself to condemn British Muslim terrorists and refuse to take steps to moderate extreme British Muslims, then surely they are hardly projecting themself in a positive light?

If extreme members of the Christian community in China started blowing Han Chinese up in the name of Christianity and the Christian community in China refused to condemn the terrorists or to try to prevent Christian firebrands from inciting more violence, then you would see no problem with that?

…if the surahs Scoobydo has quoted determined it as much as he suggests, Europe would have been in flames years ago, and we would all still be fighting in its ruins now. There is more daily evidence against your concerns, than evidence supporting them.

What has happened on the Islamic terrorism / incitement of violence front in the British Isles in just the last 12 months?

I can forgive you for being unaware of the details of British Islamic terrorism, being German, but it is in fact thriving.

18th June 2010

A preacher invited to speak at arenas in Wembley and Sheffield by British Muslims, who believes ‘every Muslim should be a terrorist’, has been banned from coming to Britain.

But chances are that we can live with each other in peace in Europe – provided that neither inappropriate naivety nor a drive to heap unreasonable blame on each other will rule us.

It would appear that the Muslim terrorists in the newspaper reports above don’t want to live in peace.

For whatever reason, they seem to have it in for the UK.

[Note from MyLaowai: the reason this and other comments are held for moderation, is the large number of hyperlinks in the comment. Nothing personal, it’s an automatic thing. Just wanted to let you know – ML]

justrecentlysaid

Scoobydo: I’ll post some links about muslims in the UK condemning terrorism (re your #10 comment). I don’t think it will make you feel much better about them, but anyway.
If they take a while to appear, the post will probably be on hold for moderation.

Scoobydosaid

I don’t think it will make you feel much better about them, but anyway.

On the contrary, I try to let the facts shape my opinion.

I was pleasantly surprised to find condemnations of terrorism by Muslim leaders around the world when I did a search.

On the other hand, I was surprised by how thin on the ground they are. However, I did read that many condemnations are neither in English nor on the Internet, which sounds reasonable.

Your 5th link is a paper condemning Muslim honour killings, not Muslim terrorism so I am puzzled why you have included it.

Your 2nd (2001), 3rd (2001) & 7th (2007) links all come from the British Muslim council, an organisation that campaigns to force British Muslim schoolgirls to be totally covered except for their hands and face, to remove Muslims from religious education classes but to to allow Muslims to do an O level in Islam and to disallow mixed sex PE lessons.

Your 6th link (2010) is Pakistani Muslim leader (Dr Qadri) calling British imams to do more to condemn terrorism without any “ifs or buts”.

Interestingly, Dr Qadri’s ruling also goes further than most previous edicts by describing terror acts as so morally unjustifiable that they represent acts of “kufr” (disbelief).

Most previous rulings only go as far as calling terrorism “haram” (forbidden).

7th Link (2008) – Imam of Exeter Mosque condemning a city centre explosion carried out by a convert to Islam.

8th Link (2007) – Scottish Inter Faith Council (which includes some Scottish Muslim leaders), condemning the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport and terrorist incidents in London by Muslims.

Your 6th link is very interesting.

Last year Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi, a respected cleric and close friend of Dr Qadri (who called for British imams to do more to condemn terrorism without any “ifs or buts”), was assassinated days after issuing a verbal fatwa on national television condemning terrorism.

It would appear, that condemning terrorism isn’t without its hazards for Muslim leaders!

We call upon the Danish government and the Danish people to yield to the large number of objective and sincere voices emanating from within their society, by apologizing, and condemning and bringing an end to this attack. This is to ensure that Denmark is not isolated from the global community, a community that upholds the kind of freedom that prevents it from attacking and desecrating religious symbols or provoking animosity and antagonism towards any religion or race. We also extend this call to the countries that defended this attack, as there is no society today that advocates an unaccountable freedom without putting in place measures of regulation so as to prevent harm to come to others.

We appeal to all Muslims to exercise self-restraint in accordance with the teachings of Islam and we reject countering an act of aggression by acts not sanctioned in Islam, such as breaking treaties and breaching time honoured agreements by attacking foreign embassies or innocent people and other targets

We also emphasize not holding non-Muslims accountable, whether in Muslim countries or elsewhere, for the crime committed by those who have insulted the Prophet.

We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration criminalizing any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure.

So it would appear that the Dutch cartoons were an attack and a crime, accoroding to these moderate Muslims.

Scoobydosaid

It seems that the Muslim Council of Britain is less than admirable with extremist behaviour and links to Muslim extremists at the highest level.

Though the MCB publicly condemns extremism, its leading figures all have histories of encouraging extremism. Its last secretary general was Iqbal Sacranie, who headed MCB from 2004 to 2006.

As a younger man, he was a leader of the campaigns against Salman Rushdie’s book “The Satanic Verses”.

Sacranie said of Rushdie on the day of the fatwa: “Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him… his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah.”

In 2006, MCB had argued for Blair to modify the almost obsolete 1697 Blasphemy Act, to include blasphemy against Islam as a crime.

In January last year, Melanie Phillips asked Sacranie about how his proposed “Incitement to Religious Hatred” bill would affect comments about Muslim terrorism. Sacranie responded by saying: “There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision.”

Sacranie has praised Hamas suicide bombers as “freedom fighters”, and has called Ahmad Yassin, the founder of Hamas “the renowned Islamic scholar”.

One of the founders of the MCB is Mehboob Kantharia, who was on its Central Working Committee from 1997 to 2004. He has since left the group. Last year he said that within the MCB is a faction that is anti-British, and anti-Islam. On the MCB’s attitudes toward extremism, he said: “A lot of them still live in a state of denial. It is my personal belief that because they are in this state of denial, they cannot become… forthright about wanting to do something about the kind of extremism that prevails.”

In June this year, the new secretary general of the MCB was announced. This man is Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, who is chairman of the East London Mosque, which was built with donations from Saudi Arabia. Last year, when he was the deputy secretary general of the MCB, Bari was asked by Ware why he had invited the imam at the Grand Mosque at Mecca to the East London Mosque.

This imam, Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Sudais (also spelled Sudeis or Sudayyis), has frequently condemned Jews. He has said: “Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers… the scum of the human race ‘whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs…’

Since coming to power as head of the MCB, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari has shown his support for extremists. In July this year, Bari welcomed war criminal Delwar Hossain Sayeedi to the East London Mosque. Sayeedi is a Bangladeshi member of Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami.

Sayeedi has called Hindus excrement and has said that US soldiers in Iraq should convert to Islam or die.

Muslim Council of Britain condemns ban on Dr Zakir Naik entering UK
Dr Naik has been quoted as saying “all Muslims should be terrorists”, but he argues these comments from a 1996 lecture have been taken out of context

Scoobydosaid

Dr Muhammad Naseem, chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque, said: “There is a perception that Muslims are a source of terrorism”.

Following the 7 July London bombings, comments made by Naseem criticizing the security services and Metropolitan Police were widely criticized by politicians including MPs Khalid Mahmood and Shadow Home Secretary David Davis.

He was condemned further after he compared Prime Minister Tony Blair to Adolf Hitler in the same week

In February 2007 British police in Birmingham arrested nine suspected terrorists. A few days later Naseem said:

Muslims are persecuted unjustly. The German people were told Jews were a threat. The same is happening here. This is a persecuting course of action that the government has taken. They have invented this perception of a threat. To justify that, they have to maintain incidents to prove something is going on.

He also said that Britain is becoming a police state. Assistant Chief Constable David Shaw responded to Naseem’s comments by saying that, “Despite certain labels given to those men by the media, what we are dealing with here in its purest sense is criminality,” and Naseem is “wrong”

Scoobydosaid

Some Muslim clerics believe that under Islam married couples are allowed to share an interest in erotic underwear.

Ayub Laher, the general secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques, said: “Islam encourages a man and wife to please each other within the confines of their own homes. Underwear is allowed, massage oils can be part of innocent fun and as long as leather is not made out of pigskin, that is fine too,” he said.

Scoobydosaid

Pakistani Muslim leader (Dr Qadri) calls British imams must do more to condemn terrorism without any “ifs or buts”.

Dr Qadri’s ruling also goes further than most previous edicts by describing terror acts as so morally unjustifiable that they represent acts of “kufr” (disbelief). Most previous rulings only go as far as calling terrorism “haram” (forbidden).

We call upon the Danish government and the Danish people to yield to the large number of objective and sincere voices emanating from within their society, by apologizing, and condemning and bringing an end to this attack. This is to ensure that Denmark is not isolated from the global community, a community that upholds the kind of freedom that prevents it from attacking and desecrating religious symbols or provoking animosity and antagonism towards any religion or race. We also extend this call to the countries that defended this attack, as there is no society today that advocates an unaccountable freedom without putting in place measures of regulation so as to prevent harm to come to others. Of course, societies differ in their levels of regulation.

We appeal to all Muslims to exercise self-restraint in accordance with the teachings of Islam and we reject countering an act of aggression by acts not sanctioned in Islam, such as breaking treaties and breaching time honoured agreements by attacking foreign embassies or innocent people and other targets

We also emphasize not holding non-Muslims accountable, whether in Muslim countries or elsewhere, for the crime committed by those who have insulted the Prophet.

We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration criminalizing any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure.

So it would appear that according to these moderate Muslim, the Danish cartoons were an attack and a crime and want Denmark to apologise.

They are also campaigning for the UN to declare such cartoons illegal.

Scoobydosaid

I don’t think it will make you feel much better about them, but anyway.

On the contrary, I try to let the facts shape my opinion.

I was pleasantly surprised to find condemnations of terrorism by Muslim leaders around the world.

On the other hand, I was surprised by how thin on the ground they are. However, I did read that many condemnations are neither in English nor on the Internet, which sounds reasonable.

Your 5th link is a paper condemning Muslim honour killings, not Muslim terrorism so I am puzzled why you have included it.

Your 2nd (2001), 3rd (2001) & 7th (2007) links all come from the British Muslim council, an organisation that campaigns to force British Muslim schoolgirls to be totally covered except for their hands and face, to remove Muslims from religious education classes and to disallow mixed sex PE lessons.

Your 6th link (2010) Pakistani Muslim leader (Dr Qadri) calling British imams must do more to condemn terrorism without any “ifs or buts”.

Interestingly, Dr Qadri’s ruling also goes further than most previous edicts by describing terror acts as so morally unjustifiable that they represent acts of “kufr” (disbelief). Most previous rulings only go as far as calling terrorism “haram” (forbidden).

7th Link (2008) – Imam of Exeter Mosque condemning a city centre explosion carried out by a convert to Islam.
8th Link (2007) – Scottish Inter Faith Council (which includes some Scottish Muslim leaders), condemning the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport and incidents in London by Muslims.

Your 6th link is very interesting.

Last year Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi, a respected cleric and close friend of Dr Qadri (who called for British imams to do more to condemn terrorism without any “ifs or buts”), was assassinated days after issuing a verbal fatwa on national television condemning terrorism.

It would appear, that condemning terrorism isn’t without its hazards for Muslim leaders!

We call upon the Danish government and the Danish people to yield to the large number of objective and sincere voices emanating from within their society, by apologizing, and condemning and bringing an end to this attack. This is to ensure that Denmark is not isolated from the global community, a community that upholds the kind of freedom that prevents it from attacking and desecrating religious symbols or provoking animosity and antagonism towards any religion or race. We also extend this call to the countries that defended this attack, as there is no society today that advocates an unaccountable freedom without putting in place measures of regulation so as to prevent harm to come to others. Of course, societies differ in their levels of regulation.

We appeal to all Muslims to exercise self-restraint in accordance with the teachings of Islam and we reject countering an act of aggression by acts not sanctioned in Islam, such as breaking treaties and breaching time honoured agreements by attacking foreign embassies or innocent people and other targets

We also emphasize not holding non-Muslims accountable, whether in Muslim countries or elsewhere, for the crime committed by those who have insulted the Prophet.

We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration criminalizing any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure.

So it would appear that according to these moderate Muslim, the Danish cartoons were an attack and a crime.

They are also campaigning for the UN to declare such cartoons illegal.

Scoobydosaid

“The bloke there doesn’t even know his own history. Don’t waste your time.”

How so?

Everything I have said is backed up by evidence.

If you can refute any thing I have said with facts, then please do so.

If on the other hand, facts offend you unless they agree with your prexisting values and you would prefer Just Recently to “Stop being nice” and merely start throwing insults around, then at least admit to yourself that your position is factually bereft.

The Muslim Council of Britain, had a general secretary, Iqbal Sacranie, from 2004 to 2006 that said death was perhaps too good for Salman Rushdie, has praised Hamas suicide bombers as “freedom fighters” and said there is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the general secretary who replaced Iqbal Sacranie, invited an Iman to speak who had called Jews “the scum of the human race ‘whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs…” and who also invited Delwar Hossain Sayeedi to speak who is of the opinion that Hindus are excrement and has said that US soldiers in Iraq should convert to Islam or die.

Don’t these things worry you?

Oh, and the Muslim Council of Britain also objects to the home secretary banning a Muslim speaker from entering the UK that said “all Muslims should be terrorists”.

Fortunately, in spite of the name, the “Muslim Council of Britain”, they only represent 3% of the Muslims in the UK.

The vast majority of Muslims are law abiding and want no truck with extremists such as the “Muslim Council of Britain”.

I think Just Recently is a very intelligent poster who heart is most certainly in the right place.

On the other hand, when choosing examples to show moderate Muslims condemning violence and the incitement of violence, Just Recently could do much better than the Muslim Council of Britain or Dr Muhammad Naseem, chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque who likened Tony Blair to Hitler in the week following the 7 July London bombings and who maintains that Muslim suspected of terrorism are being persecuted unjustly.

The assistant chief constable disagrees and characterises the suspects behaviour as being criminal.

justrecentlysaid

Thanks for the discussion, Scoobydo. As far as I’m concerned, it’s others peoples’ turn now to read this thread and – if interested – voice their own opinions. I might be back if there’s something new.

Forget it, Scoobydo. Justrecently discussed with you, rather than trying to refute you. He’s not stupid, but maybe a bit naive.
When I see a man who accuses other people for his own crapped pants, I’m just thinking that’s a sorry scene.

“Ned…There can be muslims who believe less fervently in their scriptures, than you believe in yours. This may be beyond your imagination…”

Why would it be beyond my imagination, when it has been part of my experience in, say, Indonesia where some Muslims drink beer and own dogs? By the way, as a Catholic I’m not a strict Biblical literalist; that’s something you Germans invented beginning with the whack-job Luther’s heretical “doctrine” of “sola scriptura”. ;-)

From what I know about Martin Luther, he was a great man, but not a likeable one, and sometimes not even a respectable one. He acclaimed top-down violence and condemned bottom-up violence, but I’m not blaming him for being a bible-centrist.
After all, once this “heretic” succeeded”, the monopoly of a bunch of corrupt old master-builders on peoples’ money – and peoples’ conscience – was over.
And further heretics made sure that Luther wouldn’t attain monopolies of their own.
So even if unintentionally, Luther played an important part in enlightenment’s history.

I fully understand that you are no strict Biblical literalist, Ned. Thanks to Luther, I suppose.

Scoobydosaid

“And by the way Scooby, no offense, but what you wrote on muslims would most definitely be labeled as racism in the States

0112337”

Racism is a criminal offence.

I have clearly committed no crime.

You are rather unfortunately confusing the liberal left’s notion of ‘political correctness’ with racism.

Political correctness was defined (surprisingly well) by George Bush after the Fort Hood jihadist attack,

“The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain gestures, off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.”

I have discussed facts about Muslims in the UK that the liberal left would prefer to be censored.

They are routinely so desperate to censor such information that, due to their inability to factually refute it, they routinely trot out the ‘racism’ card.

However ,by virtue of me not braking any racism laws (laws sponsored by the liberal left in the last 20 years), I can’t, as a matter fact in law, be a racist.

I must be merely ‘guilty’ of not being sufficiently ‘politically correct’ in the eyes of the said liberal left.

Scoobydosaid

The problem to carry guide dogs on religious grounds has become so widespread that the matter was raised in the House of Lords last week, prompting transport minister Norman Baker to warn that a religious objection was not a reason to eject a passenger with a well-behaved guide dog.

Mr Baker yesterday warned bus and cab companies that, while there were within their rights to ask a passenger to leave if the dog was causing a nuisance, it was ‘much more questionable to be asked to remove a dog for religious reasons’.

“After all, once this “heretic” (Luther) succeeded”, the monopoly of a bunch of corrupt old master-builders on peoples’ money – and peoples’ conscience – was over.”

The monopoly changed from a trans-national one to various national ones. To take England for example, the English monarch claimed and exercised a monopoly over the religious consciences of the citizens as well as over former church property, unrestricted by the prior competing power of the trans-national church. The result was the barbaric destructions of ancient monasteries, whose wealth was not distributed to the poor (as it was by the monks, however cynically and corruptly) but to the Sovereign and his cronies. And most of the consequent orgies of religious persecutions were inflicted by the Protestants; the death toll of Protestants executed by “Bloody Mary” was around 250, the toll of Catholics murdered by Henry and Elizabeth the Bastard and then Cromwell was in the tens of thousands, including the de facto genocide of the Irish.

One of the benefits of the trans-national Catholic church in Medieval Europe was that it was a check on the unrestricted powers of states. Another one was, in fact, a social safety net for the poor. Hospitals were a Catholic invention. When that safety net was destroyed by the Protestant sovereigns in Northern Europe, and later by the secularists of Revolutionary France, the lower classes became utterly dependent upon the state for succour, WITHOUT the restraining ethos of a mandate of charity. Charles Dickens chronicled the results of this in utilitarian 19th century England, in which my own 4-times-great-grandfather died in the state-owned workhouse for lack of any compassionate religious institutions to take him in in his senility. (In 19th century England, the senile elderly were forced into workhouses; in the middle ages they were taken in by monasteries and treated with a modicum of dignity.)

By the way, the European concept of the university was a Catholic invention too. The Church’s control of the medieval universities protected their intellectual freedom from the political pressures of state sovereigns. Of course I anticipate the ill-informed 21st century secularist retort that the medieval Church was intellectually monolithic in its own way. That happens to be false. Although some essential doctrines were off-limits, most of the contested philosophical and scientific questions of that age were considered fair game for debate, including the heliocentric solar system; Galileo was censured NOT for believing that the earth revolves around the sun, but for combining that observation with other unproved, unempirical speculations based upon it and refusing to acknowledge that they were speculations; in other words he wasn’t censured for his scientific observations, but for his arrogantly UN-empirical speculations about their implications.

And at any rate, Galileo was wrong in believing that the Sun was the centre of the universe. Hmm…